So, Republicans, fix immigration!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is standing in the Republicans way. What ever the Conservative Republicans on this forum want - their own party can give them. New laws, enforcement of existing laws, outlawing sanctuary cities, etc.

So stop the constant whiny.

Hmm! Republicans are not whining about this - they are deporting people who are here illegally and further restricting immigration.

It is the Democrats and the Hispanic lobby who are forever whining about something needing to be done.

Count the number on threads whining about undocumented immigrants on this forum. None are written by Democrats or Liberals.

And who cares what Democrats whine about? You don't need them. Do something!!!

I would think the OP on this topic was started by a Democrat - certainly unlikely to be a Republican.

When Trump reversed Obama's DACA EO, the outcry was by liberals and Hispanic groups as were the demonstrations.

I think ICE and Trump would be perfectly good with just deporting illegals and holding back funds to sanctuary cities. The litigation against this is invariably by liberal and Hispanic groups.

I think some R Congress also were not happy about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hmm. Why is it the liberals are apologists for illegal immigrants and anchor babies? We see this all the time here on DCUM alone. Liberals *encourage* illegal immigrants to come here and stay here. They lobby hard for amnesty and citizenship for illegals. They call anyone who wants illegal immigration to stop, "RACISTS." What about this don't you understand? Liberal leaders and the people who vote for them are illegal immigrants biggest champions. Don't try passing this one off on the Republicans. You liberals fight at every turn to let these people stay in the country - ILLEGALLY. Hypocrites of the highest order.

This is exactly correct! It is part of the identity politics that has become an integral part of the Democratic party. It is nothing more than pandering for votes. They get 70% of the Hispanic vote and it is all a calculated move to maintain this group's support. The irony is that in the process they end up alienating the white vote in middle-America where the Hispanic population is not as significant and the net effect is that they lose many of those states. So they lose the electoral college and wonder why that has happened.

What is more is that legal immigrants who become citizens are less than kindly disposed to illegals who try and jump the line to attain status. We have quite a few immigrants who came here legally express their outrage on DCUM at the Democratic party's espousal of illegals.

The one thing that has changed is that blacks who were at one time vigorously opposed to illegals because they competed for jobs have become less of a factor for Democrats on this issue since they will vote Democratic in any event and can be taken for granted.

Well you guys are in charge now, so quit bitching and fix it. That is, if you can convince the R leadership to actually do it. Their pockets are still wide open to big business.

And it's still in the best interests of the Democratic party to pander to illegal immigrants and Hispanics because they want their vote. Pretty obvious. But sure, blame it on "big business."

So if the Rs are OK with status quo and the Ds are OK with status quo then why is this such a "hot topic"? Oh wait, we hate brown people, right?

The establishment GOP seems ok with it, but the GOP base is not ok with it.

If the GOP base starts showing up at townhalls with the same vigor, pro obamacare constituents did, or support heavily anti-illegal immigration candidates in primaries, the establishment GOP will have to change their stance and make actual changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is standing in the Republicans way. What ever the Conservative Republicans on this forum want - their own party can give them. New laws, enforcement of existing laws, outlawing sanctuary cities, etc.

So stop the constant whiny.

nonsense, the d's are filibustering everything. True, McConnell should change the rules to eliminate the filibuster, but for some silly he hasn't yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is standing in the Republicans way. What ever the Conservative Republicans on this forum want - their own party can give them. New laws, enforcement of existing laws, outlawing sanctuary cities, etc.

So stop the constant whiny.

nonsense, the d's are filibustering everything. True, McConnell should change the rules to eliminate the filibuster, but for some silly he hasn't yet.

"Precedent" that's why! What goes around, comes around and McConnell doesn't want to be remembered for that. Nor should he be.

Some legislators still have standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is standing in the Republicans way. What ever the Conservative Republicans on this forum want - their own party can give them. New laws, enforcement of existing laws, outlawing sanctuary cities, etc.

So stop the constant whiny.

nonsense, the d's are filibustering everything. True, McConnell should change the rules to eliminate the filibuster, but for some silly he hasn't yet.

Most legislation only requires a simple majority, which the Republicans have. What have the Democrats filibustered in the last nine months this sorry administration has put on the floor?

[Anonymous]

Name one immigration bill that the Democrats have filibustered?


Actually name one immigration bill the Republicans have put on the floor?


What the Republican base never seems to realize is that the Republicans don't want to change immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hmm. Why is it the liberals are apologists for illegal immigrants and anchor babies? We see this all the time here on DCUM alone. Liberals *encourage* illegal immigrants to come here and stay here. They lobby hard for amnesty and citizenship for illegals. They call anyone who wants illegal immigration to stop, "RACISTS." What about this don't you understand? Liberal leaders and the people who vote for them are illegal immigrants biggest champions. Don't try passing this one off on the Republicans. You liberals fight at every turn to let these people stay in the country - ILLEGALLY. Hypocrites of the highest order.

This is exactly correct! It is part of the identity politics that has become an integral part of the Democratic party. It is nothing more than pandering for votes. They get 70% of the Hispanic vote and it is all a calculated move to maintain this group's support. The irony is that in the process they end up alienating the white vote in middle-America where the Hispanic population is not as significant and the net effect is that they lose many of those states. So they lose the electoral college and wonder why that has happened.

What is more is that legal immigrants who become citizens are less than kindly disposed to illegals who try and jump the line to attain status. We have quite a few immigrants who came here legally express their outrage on DCUM at the Democratic party's espousal of illegals.

The one thing that has changed is that blacks who were at one time vigorously opposed to illegals because they competed for jobs have become less of a factor for Democrats on this issue since they will vote Democratic in any event and can be taken for granted.

Well you guys are in charge now, so quit bitching and fix it. That is, if you can convince the R leadership to actually do it. Their pockets are still wide open to big business.

There is nothing to fix!

The existing laws make it clear that someone who is here illegally has no right to be in the country. The one thing that Roy Moore's victory should have made clear to Republican leadership is that amnesty is not on the cards while Trump is in office.

Then why is trump twiddling his thumb and not deporting the DACA/DAPA? Why are Ryan and McConnel desperately seeking to make DACA legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is standing in the Republicans way. What ever the Conservative Republicans on this forum want - their own party can give them. New laws, enforcement of existing laws, outlawing sanctuary cities, etc.

So stop the constant whiny.

nonsense, the d's are filibustering everything. True, McConnell should change the rules to eliminate the filibuster, but for some silly he hasn't yet.

Most legislation only requires a simple majority, which the Republicans have. What have the Democrats filibustered in the last nine months this sorry administration has put on the floor?

Umm... no. Although it technically takes a simple majority to pass, it takes 60 votes for "cloture" to end debate and actually vote on a bill.

Applies to most everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Name one immigration bill that the Democrats have filibustered?


Actually name one immigration bill the Republicans have put on the floor?


What the Republican base never seems to realize is that the Republicans don't want to change immigration.

The current rules are fine. They just need to be enforced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name one immigration bill that the Democrats have filibustered?


Actually name one immigration bill the Republicans have put on the floor?


What the Republican base never seems to realize is that the Republicans don't want to change immigration.

The current rules are fine. They just need to be enforced.

So why aren't the Republicans enforcing the laws?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name one immigration bill that the Democrats have filibustered?


Actually name one immigration bill the Republicans have put on the floor?


What the Republican base never seems to realize is that the Republicans don't want to change immigration.

The current rules are fine. They just need to be enforced.

So why aren't the Republicans enforcing the laws?

$$$$$. It's all about that money. It really not hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

First liberals have to give up sanctuary cities and protections for dreamers....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First liberals have to give up sanctuary cities and protections for dreamers....

But what about States Rights?
Isn't that the core of the GOP's principle?
Isn't that the root of the Southern Strategy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First liberals have to give up sanctuary cities and protections for dreamers....

But what about States Rights?
Isn't that the core of the GOP's principle?
Isn't that the root of the Southern Strategy?

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con­stitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become nat­uralized citizens of the United States. But control over naturalization does not necessarily require full control over immigration. And indeed, for the first century of the United States’ existence, many states enacted laws regulating and controlling immigration into their own borders. Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states (which appear to have some support from the 9/10th amendments), including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks.

I personally don't have much of a problem with sanctuary cities (unless their actions are in conflict with the law), but I don't see much of a problem with the federal government withholding funds either for non-compliance. Then again, I'm just an unhinged libertarian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First liberals have to give up sanctuary cities and protections for dreamers....

But what about States Rights?
Isn't that the core of the GOP's principle?
Isn't that the root of the Southern Strategy?

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con­stitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become nat­uralized citizens of the United States. But control over naturalization does not necessarily require full control over immigration. And indeed, for the first century of the United States’ existence, many states enacted laws regulating and controlling immigration into their own borders. Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states (which appear to have some support from the 9/10th amendments), including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks.

I personally don't have much of a problem with sanctuary cities (unless their actions are in conflict with the law), but I don't see much of a problem with the federal government withholding funds either for non-compliance. Then again, I'm just an unhinged libertarian.

States aren't responsible for deporting illegal immigrants. Some of the county/city jails are overflowing. They prefer to make room for violent criminals rather than people who overstayed their visas. I for one am happy that states focus on these violent criminals (regardless of status) rather than a nonviolent one.